At 00:22 -0500 UTC, on 2007-08-04, Robert Burns wrote:
> On Aug 3, 2007, at 11:44 PM, Jason White wrote:
[...]
>> <p><img src="compleximage.jpg" alt="label" id="compleximage">
>> <alt for="compleximage"> <a href="description.html" title="Detailed
>> description
>> of image">Description</a></alt>
I would say that that @title value should have been on the alt element, not
on its content. Possibly this lays bare a potential problem? How could we
protect authors from making this mistake?
>> This has the further advantage that the UA behaviour associated
>> with a link, unlike @longdesc, is well defined.
>
> It may be too well-defined. In other words it is defined as a
> hyperlinking mechanism to a related resource (rather than a linking
> mechanism to an equivalent / alternate / fallback resource.
I'm not sure what is referred to here with "defined". Does it refer to a
definition of <alt>, or to the markup in the example?
[...]
> <fallback id="compleximage">
> <alt>
> <p> [multiple paragraphs of long description]
> </alt>
> <alt>
> <object Š/>
> </alt>
> <alt title='something for a UA to display in the selection mechanism'' >
> <object Š/>
> </alt>
> </fallback>
A downdise might be that this would force authors to provide all equivalents
together. Might be OK, but have we thoroughly enough considered whether it
might not be perfectly valid in some situations to have equivalents
'splattered throughout' the document?
--
Sander Tekelenburg
The Web Repair Initiative: <http://webrepair.org/>